Urogenital Infections and Inflammations

T.E. Bjerklund Johansen, F. M.E. Wagenlehner, Y.-H. Cho, T. Matsumoto, J. N. Krieger, D. Shoskes, K. Naber

UTI in renal transplant patients

Valerie Huei Li Gan 1
 Daniel Shoskes 2


1 Department of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
2 Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, United States

Abstract

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infectious complication following kidney transplantation. The incidence in adults is about 20% in the first six months and 50% in the first three years, despite the common use of antibiotic prophylaxis. Risk factors include more intensive immunosuppression (especially the use of depleting induction antibodies and sirolimus), extremes of age, diabetes, prolonged time on dialysis, abnormal or reconstructed lower urinary tract and prolonged use of urinary catheters and stents. Diagnosis may be complicated by other conditions causing urinary symptoms and fever in transplant recipients, as well as immunosuppression masking the typical presentation and lack of symptoms in a denervated kidney. Infection may involve the graft or native kidneys. Typical uropathogens are commonly involved but UTI’s may also be caused by commensal and fastidious bacteria, fungus, mycobacteria and viruses. Some studies suggest post transplant UTI has a negative impact on graft survival and function, although causality has not been established. There is a paucity of prospective controlled data that can guide UTI prophylaxis or therapy in terms of agent or duration although most programs will routinely use prophylaxis for at least six months.


Summary of recommendations

  1. Antimicrobial prophylaxis following renal transplantation reduces bacteriuria (GoR A) and incidence of early urinary tract infection (GoR B)
  2. While there are kidney and recipient factors that increase the risk of UTI post-transplant, the value of more intensive or greater duration prophylaxis is unproven (GoR C)
  3. Post-transplant UTI risk can be reduced by early removal of urinary foreign bodies (foley catheters, stents, percutaneous nephrostomies) (GoR B)
  4. Asymptomatic bacteriuria post-kidney transplant does not require therapy beyond standard prophylaxis (GoR C)
  5. Therapy of post-transplant UTI should be guided by culture, sensitivities and antibiotic characteristics, favoring bacteriocidal antibiotics rather than bacteriostatic antibiotics with poor tissue penetration (GoR C)

Introduction

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the commonest infectious complication following renal transplantation. It is a potential source of severe systemic illness but its contribution to permanent graft dysfunction remains controversial.

This chapter is an update of the previous 2010 edition, discussing the definitions, epidemiology, microbiology, risk factors, therapy and impact of post-transplant UTI. Recommendations are made based on the previous chapter and evidence derived from studies which have been published since then.

Methods

The consensus was reached after a systematic Pubmed review of reports published in the last 20 years using the following keywords: kidney or renal, transplantation, complications (urinary tract infection or bacteriuria). This search yielded 1,429 studies of which 155 were review articles. The studies were rated according to the level of evidence (LoE) and the grade of recommendation (Gor) using ICUD standards.

Results

1 Definitions in post-transplant UTI

The definition of post-transplant UTI in literature can vary significantly. Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), which is the presence of bacteria in the urine without the presence of clinical symptoms (dysuria, urinary frequency, hematuria, graft tenderness etc.), is often considered a UTI. A UTI requires pathological invasion of the urothelium with microorganisms resulting in tissue injury and an inflammatory response. This inflammatory response, which may be local and/or systemic, produces the clinical syndrome of infection. One should keep in mind that the common signs and symptoms of UTI may be absent in the immunosuppressed transplant recipient or may be mimicked by normal post-transplant conditions (e.g. hematuria from the ureteral stent, polyuria due to early loss of urinary concentrating ability and urinary frequency from a small defunctionalized bladder). All UTIs in renal allograft recipients are considered complicated UTIs because of the immunocompromised status of the patient and the altered anatomy of the urogenital tract. It is therefore important to distinguish the definitions used when reviewing transplant literature. Also, UTI can be further subdivided into cystitis, graft pyelonephritis and urosepsis.

Most laboratories will report a positive urine culture with isolation of a single bacterial strain in quantitative counts ≥105 cfu/ml of fresh unspun midstream urine. This definition is based on studies in the 1970s of college age females which tried to find an appropriate cutoff to diagnose pyelonephritis in the absence of lower urinary tract symptoms. In a symptomatic patient however, 102 cfu/ml is a sufficient threshold. Furthermore, in transplant patients, the diagnosis of UTI may be equivocal and ideally the lab should be asked to provide a numerical bacterial count and not merely report “no significant bacterial growth”. Conversely, in a patient with a Foley catheter, urine may have counts over 1010 and not be infected [1].

Finally, the classification and definitions of repeat UTI give important etiologic information in transplant recipients. They may be unresolved (remain active despite therapy), persistent (resolve with therapy but recur soon after with the same bacteria) or recurrent (resolve with therapy but recurs later with a different bacteria). Unresolved UTI usually indicates wrong antibiotic therapy or multiple organisms. In transplant patients, bacteriostatic antibiotics may be insufficient as the immune system cannot eradicate the dormant bacteria. Recurrent UTIs often point to bacterial reintroduction, commonly following intercourse in women; however, in transplant patients it may point to over-immunosuppression. Persistent infections are usually clues to an unresolved bacterial nidus, and should prompt a search for foreign bodies, inefficient bladder emptying or a source from the native kidneys (e.g. reflux, stones).

2 Epidemiology

UTIs are the most common infectious complication (45%) following kidney transplantation [2]. While seldom causing mortality, UTIs can still cause significant morbidity and possibly impact graft survival. Publications addressing its incidence are limited by being single center with small numbers, heterogeneity in UTI definitions/diagnosis, follow up and inpatient vs outpatient records (LoE 3).

Up to 71% of bacteriuria occurring within 1 month of transplantation is ASB [3]. Another study reported that half of renal transplant recipients developed at least one episode of ASB within 36 months of their transplant [4].

In a large retrospective database study of almost 29,000 patients (USRDS with Medicare billing codes from 1996 to 2000), the cumulative incidence of UTI during the first 6 months after renal transplantation was 17% (equivalent for men and women). At three years, the UTI incidence was 60% for women and 47% for men [5].

Another study analyzed UTIs as cystitis and pyelonephritis and reported the incidence of UTI as 0.45 episodes/1000 transplantation days [6]. In this cohort, 7.3% of renal transplant recipients developed a UTI, of which 82% had cystitis and 18% had pyelonephritis. In a 12-year study looking at gram negative bacteremia in renal transplant recipients, 75% of the 6.6% who developed bacteremia had UTI as the primary source of infection [7].

3 Etiology and risk factors

The etiology of UTI following renal transplantation is usually multifactorial. The risk factors include patient factors and transplant related factors i.e. donor factors, immunosuppression and the presence of foreign bodies.

3.1 Patient factors

Age correlates with post-transplant UTI in a bimodal distribution, with the highest incidences in the pediatric and elderly population. In the previously mentioned USRDS review, age was found to be independently associated with late UTIs (>6 months following renal transplantation) in men >55 years when compared with those <55 years [5]. Similarly, Chuang et al. reported that 55% of patients >65 years vs 38% of patients <30 years at transplantation developed post-transplant UTIs [9]. Older patients may be at higher risk due to inefficient voiding as a result of poor bladder contractility (e.g. diabetic cystopathy) or outflow obstruction (e.g. prostatic hyperplasia).

At the other end of the spectrum, pediatric renal allograft recipients represent a special population with respect to post transplant UTI. In this group, the higher incidence of UTI is often related to the etiology of ESRD. Urinary tract malformations and lower urinary tract dysfunction are present in up to 25% of children with renal failure. John et al., in their retrospective review of three centers found a UTI rate of 36% (median time one year) and 28% of patients had recurrent UTI [10]. Bacteriuria was also more common in patients transplanted into a reconstructed lower urinary tract than in recipients with normal bladders (83% vs 17%) [11].

Female gender is a UTI risk factor in adult transplant recipients [6]. 68% of female recipients vs 30% of male recipients had at least one UTI post-transplant and 71% of patients with recurrent UTI were females in Chuang’s study [9]. In the pediatric group however, boys had more frequent post-transplant UTIs, again likely related to the etiology of ESRD [5].

Comorbid conditions such as diabetes mellitus (DM) may impact the frequency of infections post-transplant. DM recipients had a higher readmission rate due to infections (45% vs 2%) and an increased risk of fungal UTI [12], [13].

Prolonged ESRD with dialysis pre-transplant has also been correlated with higher risk of UTI in renal transplant recipients [5]. This may be related to a higher incidence of complicated UTI in recipients with prolonged anuria prior to transplant [14].

The presence of ASB has also been described as a risk factor for UTI. Other risk factors described include recurrent UTIs prior to transplantation and glomerulonephritis as the primary renal disease [3], [4].

3.2 Transplant related factors

3.2.1 Donor type

Several studies have suggested that the incidence of UTI is higher following cadaveric transplant [2]. This is unlikely due to donor contamination or ischemia but rather due to shorter waiting times for living donors and less intensive immunosuppression. One study showed an increased risk for UTI in expanded criteria donors, despite normal preimplantation biopsy findings and comparable outcomes to standard deceased donors [15]. Other studies have shown dual kidney transplants and delayed graft function to be risk factors for UTI, and these may be another reflection of expanded criteria donors [4], [6].

3.2.2 Immunosuppression

It is axiomatic that more intensive immunosuppression increases the risk of infection. Unfortunately, since there are no reliable tests of degree of immune compromise, clinical management of based upon drug levels and weight-based dosages will often lead to over- and under-treatment, which would not be evident until acute rejection or infection develops. One study which looked at infectious complications based on drug selection found more bacterial infections in patients receiving anti-thymocyte globulin (vs basiliximab) and sirolimus (vs tacrolimus) [16].

Acute rejection episodes have also been shown to be a risk factor for post-transplant UTI in a few studies [17], [18]. This may reflect the effect of increased immunosuppression used to treat the rejection episodes, or conversely, a reduction of immunosuppression in patients with recurrent UTI leading to subsequent acute rejection. A temporal analysis is required to establish the cause/consequence of UTI and rejection.

3.2.3 Foreign bodies

All patients following transplant require bladder drainage, both to closely monitor urine output and to allow the ureteroneocystostomy to heal; however, bacterial colonization and biofilm formation are inevitable over time. For patients with otherwise normal bladders and uneventful ureteral reimplant, Foley removal as early as post-operative day 2 appears safe and reduces early UTI rates [19]. Prolonged catheter use has also been linked to increased risk for bacteremia [20]. For patients whose bladders do not empty, clean intermittent catheterization is preferable to prolonged Foley drainage [21]. The microbiological implications of suprapubic catheters in transplant patients have not been studied.

Ureteral stents are often placed at the time of transplant, either routinely or in patients considered at higher risk for urologic complications. Meta-analysis of published trials confirm that stents reduce the incidence of ureteral complications but increases the risk for UTI. This is especially so with longer stents (≥20 cm) and when left in longer than six weeks [22]. Studies support the removal of stents within two to four weeks to minimize UTI risk while not compromising anastomotic healing [23], [24].

Prolonged use of percutaneous nephrostomy tubes for management of urologic complications after kidney transplant is associated with multi-drug resistant bacteria and fungal infection [25].

4 Microbiology

Bacterial UTI pathogens in renal transplant recipients are similar to that in the general population. Gram negative bacterial infections (Escherichia coli, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas and Klebsiella) are the most common followed by Gram positive organisms (Enterococcus, staphylococcus and streptococcus) and fungi [26]. Due to the routine use of antibiotics and exposure to hospital-acquired organisms, infecting strains are increasingly resistant to commonly used first line antibiotics [27].

Fungal infections are more common in immunosuppressed patients, especially those with diabetes and urinary foreign bodies [28]. Locally, fungal balls lead to ureteral obstruction [29] and systemic spread is associated with high mortality rates [16].

The BK polyoma virus was first described in 1971 after a renal transplant recipient presented with ureteral stenosis (BK was the initials of the patient) [30]. A quarter of a century later, it is increasingly recognized as a cause for graft nephropathy and subsequent graft loss, besides causing ureteral injury and strictures. BK virus exists latently in within the renal epithelial and urothelial cells in the immunocompetent host. Urinary ‘decoy cells’, although highly specific, lack sensitivity in diagnosing BK virus nephropathy and transplant biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis [31]. It may cause hemorrhagic cystitis, although this is more commonly seen in bone marrow transplant recipients. Specifically to renal transplant recipients, BK virus leads to ureteral fibrosis and ischemia with subsequent stricture formation [32].

The parasite Schistosoma haematobium is endemic in certain African countries. Bacterial UTI, renal stones and ureteric complications were found to be greater among kidney transplant recipients with schistosomiasis than among controls. However this did not impact patients or graft outcomes [33]. Mycobacterium tuberculosis can be contracted by or reactivated in immunosuppressed patients leading to UTI, epididymitis or prostatic abscess [34].

5 Presentation and evaluation

Symptomatic UTI post-renal transplant has a wide clinical spectrum including acute cystitis, transplant/native kidney pyelonephritis and bacteremia. As mentioned previously, typical signs and symptoms of UTI may be mimicked by other common post-transplant conditions. Furthermore, common UTI features may not be evident. Immunosuppression can suppress fever, primarily through blockade of IL-1 and tumor necrosis factor. Blood WBC counts may not be elevated due to bone marrow suppression. The transplant kidney is denervated and may not be tender even in the face of pyelonephritis.

Given the high prevalence and atypical presentation and microbial diversity in transplant UTI, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), fever and unexplained leukocytosis should prompt immediate urine culture. If fungal infection is suspected, microscopy and cytology may give a more rapid result than culture. Blood cultures should be included if fever or systemic symptoms are present. LUTS should be evaluated to include assessment of the post void residual by ultrasound, especially in diabetics, elderly men and in those with known urologic abnormalities. Acute prostatitis should be considered in febrile infections in men and can be confirmed by prostate exam without prostatic massage. Particularly if the patient was transplanted elsewhere, consider a KUB to ensure that a ureteric stent has not been inadvertently overlooked.

6 Prevention and therapy

It is standard practice at most centers to use antimicrobial prophylaxis peri-operatively for the wound (commonly cephalosporins) and long term against Pneumocystis pneumonia (trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole [TMP-SMX]). Therefore, most of the UTIs within 6 months were almost certainly ‘breakthrough infections’ with resistant strains.

A meta-analysis and systematic review, including only randomized controlled trials, of antibiotic prophylaxis in renal transplant recipients concluded that antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces bacteriuria and bacteremia [8]. TMP-SMZ or ciprofloxacin was used as prophylaxis in these studies with variable dosing and duration of administration. Higher dose of TMP/SMX was superior to lower dose and ciprofloxacin was superior to TMP/SMX. However, ciprofloxacin has no prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jiroveci, Nocardia and Listeria species unlike TMP/SMX. In contrast to the studies in this meta-analysis, the RESITRA cohort did not show prevention of UTI (cystitis and allograft pyelonephritis) with the use of TMP-SMX [6].

The need for treatment of ASB is controversial. There are no published prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of ASB treatment for prevention of UTI in renal transplant recipients. However, three trials are currently ongoing and data of these studies are eagerly awaited [35], [36], [37]. In a retrospective study of 196 renal allograft recipients, spontaneous bacterial clearance occurred in 59% of untreated episodes of ASB [38]. In another retrospective study, the authors interestingly reported that the risk of developing symptomatic UTI was almost three times higher and the total number of hospitalization days was also higher after treatment of ASB in comparison to no treatment [8].

Therapy can range from oral outpatient antibiotics to multidrug inpatient intravenous therapy depending on the clinical circumstance. Bacteriocidal antibiotics are preferred since the compromised innate immune cells may not be able to efficiently clear live bacteria treated with bacteriostatic drugs. Avoid drugs with primary urinary excretion and low tissue penetration (e.g. nitrofurantoin).

Predisposing/contributing factors should be corrected if possible (e.g. optimal diabetic control, removal or change of stents and catheters, minimize immunosuppression).

Interactions exist between antibiotics and immunosuppression drugs. Ciprofloxacin may raise calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) levels, but levofloxacin and ofloxacin usually do not [39]. Erythromycin and antifungal agents inhibit cytochrome p450 and increase CNI levels. Rifampin, imipenem and cephalosporins can reduce CNi levels. Nephrotoxic antibiotics (e.g. aminoglycosides, amphotericin) may have synergistic effects with CNIs, increasing renal damage.

The ideal duration of antibiotic therapy for post-transplant UTI is not firmly established. It has been suggested that early (<6 months) relapsing post-transplant UTI be treated at least 6 weeks. Persistent or recurrent UTIs should prompt the search for a surgically cause such as stones, urinary stenosis, reflux, abscess, leak or infection in the native kidneys.

UTI can co-exist with common post-transplant viral illnesses (e.g. cytomegalovirus). Transplant pyelonephritis may cause elevated creatinine. However, it should be kept in mind that there may be other causes for declining renal function (e.g. obstruction, rejection, drug toxicity) and a lack of response to antibiotic therapy should prompt an allograft biopsy.

7 Impact of UTI on graft survival

Data on the long term impact of post-transplant UTI on graft function and survival is mixed, reflecting the variations in definition and difficulty in separating causality from association. ASB itself does not seem to impair graft function. However, frequent episodes of ASB may provoke an acute rejection episode, which itself threatens the renal allograft function [4].

One recently published study reported that UTI did not impair allograft function based on creatinine levels, but a tendency towards impairment was shown when measured by nuclear studies [40].

When looking at the effect of graft pyelonephritis, the results are again conflicting. One group reported a negative impact on long term serum creatinine [18], however, another did not [4]. The data on emphysematous allograft pyelonephritis, which is rare, is more univocal. In one study of 23 cases, 12 cases (52%) required allograft nephrectomy, while 7 cases were recovered by a combination of percutaneous drainage and antibiotic treatment. Only 4 cases could be managed by antibiotic therapy alone [41].

In addition to this, bacteremia among renal allograft recipients, regardless of the primary source, jeopardize renal allograft function by raising the hazard ratio of graft failure three times [12].

In adults, the USRDS database review reported that late UTI (>6 months) was associated with increased risk of death, even after adjusting for cardiac or other infectious complications. The authors did state that UTI might simply be a clinical marker for serious underlying illness [5].

In an analysis of the USRDS data for pediatric recipients, risk for graft loss was higher for early but not late UTI, and neither impacted patient survival [42].

It is likely that pathogenic factors of the infecting bacteria play a role in renal injury which may also account for disparities in published studies [43].


References

[1] Stamm WE. Protocol for diagnosis of urinary tract infection: reconsidering the criterion for significant bacteriuria. Urology. 1988 Aug;32(2 Suppl):6-12.
[2] Dantas SR, Kuboyama RH, Mazzali M, Moretti ML. Nosocomial infections in renal transplant patients: risk factors and treatment implications associated with urinary tract and surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect. 2006 Jun;63(2):117-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.10.018
[3] Gołębiewska JE, Dębska-Ślizień A, Rutkowski B. Treated asymptomatic bacteriuria during first year after renal transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;16(4):605-15. DOI: 10.1111/tid.12255
[4] Fiorante S, López-Medrano F, Lizasoain M, Lalueza A, Juan RS, Andrés A, Otero JR, Morales JM, Aguado JM. Systematic screening and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in renal transplant recipients. Kidney Int. 2010 Oct;78(8):774-81. DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.286
[5] Abbott KC, Swanson SJ, Richter ER, Bohen EM, Agodoa LY, Peters TG, Barbour G, Lipnick R, Cruess DF. Late urinary tract infection after renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004 Aug;44(2):353-62. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2004.04.040
[6] Vidal E, Torre-Cisneros J, Blanes M, Montejo M, Cervera C, Aguado JM, Len O, Carratalá J, Cordero E, Bou G, Muñoz P, Ramos A, Gurguí M, Borrell N, Fortún J; Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI). Bacterial urinary tract infection after solid organ transplantation in the RESITRA cohort. Transpl Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;14(6):595-603. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2012.00744.x
[7] Al-Hasan MN, Razonable RR, Kremers WK, Baddour LM. Impact of Gram-negative bloodstream infection on long-term allograft survival after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2011 Jun;91(11):1206-10. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182180535
[8] Green H, Rahamimov R, Gafter U, Leibovitci L, Paul M. Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transpl Infect Dis. 2011 Oct;13(5):441-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2011.00644.x
[9] Chuang P, Parikh CR, Langone A. Urinary tract infections after renal transplantation: a retrospective review at two US transplant centers. Clin Transplant. 2005 Apr;19(2):230-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2005.00327.x
[10] John U, Everding AS, Kuwertz-Bröking E, Bulla M, Müller-Wiefel DE, Misselwitz J, Kemper MJ. High prevalence of febrile urinary tract infections after paediatric renal transplantation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006 Nov;21(11):3269-74. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfl464
[11] Pereira DA, Barroso U Jr, Machado P, Pestana JO, Rosito TE, Pires J, Almeida C, Ortiz V, Macedo A Jr. Effects of urinary tract infection in patients with bladder augmentation and kidney transplantation. J Urol. 2008 Dec;180(6):2607-10; discussion 2610. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.049
[12] Lansang MC, Ma L, Schold JD, Meier-Kriesche HU, Kaplan B. The relationship between diabetes and infectious hospitalizations in renal transplant recipients. Diabetes Care. 2006 Jul;29(7):1659-60. DOI: 10.2337/dc05-2412
[13] Safdar N, Slattery WR, Knasinski V, Gangnon RE, Li Z, Pirsch JD, Andes D. Predictors and outcomes of candiduria in renal transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 May;40(10):1413-21. DOI: 10.1086/429620
[14] Wu YJ, Veale JL, Gritsch HA. Urological complications of renal transplant in patients with prolonged anuria. Transplantation. 2008 Nov;86(9):1196-8. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318187bd37
[15] Camargo LF, Esteves AB, Ulisses LR, Rivelli GG, Mazzali M. Urinary tract infection in renal transplant recipients: incidence, risk factors, and impact on graft function. Transplant Proc. 2014 Jul-Aug;46(6):1757-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2014.05.006
[16] Alangaden GJ, Thyagarajan R, Gruber SA, Morawski K, Garnick J, El-Amm JM, West MS, Sillix DH, Chandrasekar PH, Haririan A. Infectious complications after kidney transplantation: current epidemiology and associated risk factors. Clin Transplant. 2006 Jul-Aug;20(4):401-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2006.00519.x
[17] Kamath NS, John GT, Neelakantan N, Kirubakaran MG, Jacob CK. Acute graft pyelonephritis following renal transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis. 2006 Sep;8(3):140-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2006.00148.x
[18] Pellé G, Vimont S, Levy PP, Hertig A, Ouali N, Chassin C, Arlet G, Rondeau E, Vandewalle A. Acute pyelonephritis represents a risk factor impairing long-term kidney graft function. Am J Transplant. 2007 Apr;7(4):899-907. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01700.x
[19] Rabkin DG, Stifelman MD, Birkhoff J, Richardson KA, Cohen D, Nowygrod R, Benvenisty AI, Hardy MA. Early catheter removal decreases incidence of urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 1998 Dec;30(8):4314-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0041-1345(98)01423-7
[20] Lee JR, Bang H, Dadhania D, Hartono C, Aull MJ, Satlin M, August P, Suthanthiran M, Muthukumar T. Independent risk factors for urinary tract infection and for subsequent bacteremia or acute cellular rejection: a single-center report of 1166 kidney allograft recipients. Transplantation. 2013 Oct;96(8):732-8. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a04997
[21] Hamdi M, Mohan P, Little DM, Hickey DP. Successful renal transplantation in children with spina bifida: long term single center experience. Pediatr Transplant. 2004 Apr;8(2):167-70. DOI: 10.1046/j.1399-3046.2003.00145.x
[22] Wilson CH, Rix DA, Manas DM. Routine intraoperative ureteric stenting for kidney transplant recipients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 17;(6):CD004925. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004925.pub3
[23] Glazier DB, Jacobs MG, Lyman NW, Whang MI, Manor E, Mulgaonkar SP. Urinary tract infection associated with ureteral stents in renal transplantation. Can J Urol. 1998 Mar;5(1):462-466.
[24] Tavakoli A, Surange RS, Pearson RC, Parrott NR, Augustine T, Riad HN. Impact of stents on urological complications and health care expenditure in renal transplant recipients: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Urol. 2007 Jun;177(6):2260-4; discussion 2264. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.152
[25] Linares L, Cervera C, Cofán F, Ricart MJ, Esforzado N, Torregrosa V, Oppenheimer F, Campistol JM, Marco F, Moreno A. Epidemiology and outcomes of multiple antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection in renal transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2007 Sep;39(7):2222-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.06.061
[26] Valera B, Gentil MA, Cabello V, Fijo J, Cordero E, Cisneros JM. Epidemiology of urinary infections in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2006 Oct;38(8):2414-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2006.08.018
[27] Senger SS, Arslan H, Azap OK, Timurkaynak F, Cağir U, Haberal M. Urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2007 May;39(4):1016-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.02.060
[28] Krcmery S, Dubrava M, Krcmery V Jr. Fungal urinary tract infections in patients at risk. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 1999 May;11(3-4):289-91.
[29] Sampol BJ. "Fungus ball" obstructivos en trasplantados renales [Obstructive fungus ball in kidney allografts]. Actas Urol Esp. 2008 Feb;32(2):267.
[30] Gardner SD, Field AM, Coleman DV, Hulme B. New human papovavirus (B.K.) isolated from urine after renal transplantation. Lancet. 1971 Jun 19;1(7712):1253-7.DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(71)91776-4
[31] Jamboti JS. BK virus nephropathy in renal transplant recipients. Nephrology (Carlton). 2016 Aug;21(8):647-54. DOI: 10.1111/nep.12728
[32] van Aalderen MC, Heutinck KM, Huisman C, ten Berge IJ. BK virus infection in transplant recipients: clinical manifestations, treatment options and the immune response. Neth J Med. 2012 May;70(4):172-83.
[33] Mahmoud KM, Sobh MA, El-Agroudy AE, Mostafa FE, Baz ME, Shokeir AA, Ghoneim MA. Impact of schistosomiasis on patient and graft outcome after renal transplantation: 10 years' follow-up. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001 Nov;16(11):2214-21. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/16.11.2214
[34] Cek M, Lenk S, Naber KG, Bishop MC, Johansen TE, Botto H, Grabe M, Lobel B, Redorta JP, Tenke P; Members of the Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Working Group of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office. EAU guidelines for the management of genitourinary tuberculosis. Eur Urol. 2005 Sep;48(3):353-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.03.008
[35] NCT01771432. Antibiotic treatment versus no therapy in kidney transplant recipients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (BAC01). 2012. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01771432
[36] NCT01871753. The Bacteriuria in Renal Transplantation (BiRT) Study: a trial comparing antibiotics versus no treatment in the prevention of symptomatic urnary tract infection in kidney transplant recipients with asymptomatic bacteriuria. 2013. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01871753
[37] NCT02113774. The impact of antimicrobial treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in renal transplant patients. 2014. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02113774
[38] El Amari EB, Hadaya K, Bühler L, Berney T, Rohner P, Martin PY, Mentha G, van Delden C. Outcome of treated and untreated asymptomatic bacteriuria in renal transplant recipients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011 Dec;26(12):4109-14. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr198.
[39] Borrás-Blasco J, Conesa-García V, Navarro-Ruiz A, Marín-Jiménez F, González-Delgado M, Gomez-Corrons A. Ciprofloxacin, but not levofloxacin, affects cyclosporine blood levels in a patient with pure red blood cell aplasia. Am J Med Sci. 2005 Sep;330(3):144-6. DOI: 10.1097/00000441-200509000-00009
[40] Ariza-Heredia EJ, Beam EN, Lesnick TG, Cosio FG, Kremers WK, Razonable RR. Impact of urinary tract infection on allograft function after kidney transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2014 Jun;28(6):683-90. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12366
[41] Agreda Castañeda F, Lorente D, Trilla Herrera E, Gasanz Serrano C, Servian Vives P, Iztueta Saavedra I, Morote Robles J. Extensive emphysematous pyelonephritis in a renal allograft: case report and review of literature. Transpl Infect Dis. 2014 Aug;16(4):642-7. DOI: 10.1111/tid.12246
[42] Dharnidharka VR, Agodoa LY, Abbott KC. Effects of urinary tract infection on outcomes after renal transplantation in children. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Jan;2(1):100-6. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01820506
[43] Rice JC, Peng T, Kuo YF, Pendyala S, Simmons L, Boughton J, Ishihara K, Nowicki S, Nowicki BJ. Renal allograft injury is associated with urinary tract infection caused by Escherichia coli bearing adherence factors. Am J Transplant. 2006 Oct;6(10):2375-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01471.x

The ZB MED – Information Center for Life Sciences, Germany, together with the European Association of Urology (EAU) provided the opportunity to publish a “Living Textbook” on “Urogenital Infections and Inflammations” in an open access form. This “Living Textbook” represents also an update of the Textbook on Urogenital Infections published 2010 by the International Consultation on Urological Infections and the EAU: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html.

The “Living Textbook” will cover infections and inflammations of the kidney, the urinary tract, as well as the male and female genital tract considering pathogenesis, diagnostics, treatment, prophylaxis and future aspects. The “Living Textbook” will be structured into about 26 Sections each with two section co-chairs responsible for peer review of the chapters of each section. Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.

The editors hope that this “Living Textbook” may become a useful instrument for physicians of different specialties taking care about patients suffering from these diseases.

Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen (Norway),

Florian ME Wagenlehner (Germany),

Yong-Hyun Cho (South Korea),

Tetsuro Matsumoto (Japan),

John N Krieger (USA),

Daniel Shoskes (USA),

Kurt G. Naber (Germany).

Publishing at PUBLISSO

Your chapter will be published at the PUBLISSO platform (https://books.publisso.de).

Information for corresponding authors

It is necessary for all corresponding authors to register at PUBLISSO.
To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register

After registration, please complete your user profile. Information from your user profile will appear in the published chapter and the authors board of the book (http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/book/52). If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.
(If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board, but stay registered, you can disable this feature in your profile settings. In this case, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.)

We kindly ask you to provide the co-authors email addresses in the manuscript so that we can contact them in case of queries.

Information for co-authors

After publication of your chapter, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter.

If you also want to be displayed in the authors board of the book (http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/book/52), we kindly ask you to register at PUBLISSO. If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.

To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register

If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board of the book, you do not have to register. Your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.

Support

If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact the PUBLISSO editorial office:

E-Mail: livingbooks@zbmed.de
Phone: +49 221 478-7093

General

The textbook will be structured in sections with two co-chairs each. Each section will start with an introductory chapter written by the two respective co-chairs presented like an editorial commentary in regard to the following chapters (see proposed contents of the book). The two co-chairs of each section will also peer review all chapters in their section and stimulate a consensus discussion within their section together with the authors and the main editors if needed.

Chapters

Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.

Manuscript

Each manuscript should have up to approximately 3,000 words (excluding abstract, tables/figures and references). The abstract should count about 300 words.

Structure

The outline of each chapter should be structured as follows (similar as in the edition 2010, which can be downloaded for free: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html):

  1. Abstract
  2. Summary of recommendations*/key notes*
    (*which ever term is more appropriate)
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Further research
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgement
  9. Conflict of interest of each author
  10. References

Citation style

As a citation style, the Vancouver style is preferred.

Please mark your references in the text with square brackets ([1], [2], ...).

Summary of recommendations

We would like to have the Summary of recommendations at the beginning after the abstract (as in the edition 2010). However, we do not expect as in the edition 2010, that each recommendation is also specified according to Level of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation, because such a claim would not only need a systematic literature search (see below), but also a structured discussion in a defined group of experts.

Systematic literature search

A systematic literature search should be performed, at least of PUBMED/MEDLINE but ideally of several relevant databases in addition (like Cochrane CENTRAL) to find recent, high quality systematic reviews and/or primary research studies. It is not expected to perform for all chapters a de novo systematic review, if such reviews are already published recently, but it still may be indicated for some items. For questions relating therapy, it should be focused on evidence from (systematic reviews of) randomized controlled trials if available.

The method of the systematic literature search needs to be fully described in the section “Methods”, e.g.:

“A systematic literature search was performed for the last ... (usually 10) years in MEDLINE, Cochrane etc. with the following key words ... and the following limitations: e.g. UTI, age (adult?), ... clinical studies ... English ... abstract available ... only peer reviewed ...

A total of ... publications were identified, which were screened by title and abstract ... After exclusion of duplicates ... a total of ... were included into the review (analysis), supplemented by citations or known to the authors ... ”.

Clinical topics

Clinical topics should be focused on the importance to clinical practice according to the up to date scientific knowledge as presented in the literature. It should relate to questions/complaints/symptoms of patient/population concerning definition, diagnosis, therapy/prevention, intervention, and outcome in comparison, if different approaches are feasible. Please choose patient-important outcomes and focus on those, which you deem critical for decision-making.

Level of evidence and grade of recommendations

Any recommendation should be based on the level of evidence and the grade of recommendation. For this purpose the following system, modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine should be used (EAU guidelines 2015):

Level of evidence (LE)

Level Type of evidence
1a Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised trials
1b Evidence obtained from at least one randomised trial
2a Evidence obtained from one well-designed controlled study without randomization
2b Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study
3 Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case reports.
4 Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected authorities.

Grade of Recommendations (GoR)

Grade Nature of recommendations
A Based on clinical studies of good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendations and including at least one randomised trial
B Based on well-conducted clinical studies, but without randomised clinical trials
C Made despite the absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality

Comments (EAU guidelines 2015)

The aim of assigning a LE and grading recommendations is to provide transparency between the underlying evidence and the recommendation given.

It should be noted that when recommendations are graded, the link between the level of evidence and grade of recommendation is not directly linear. Availability of randomized controlled trials may not necessarily translate into a grade “A” recommendation where there are methodological limitations or disparity in published results.

Alternatively, absence of high level evidence does not necessarily preclude a grade A recommendation, if there is overwhelming clinical experience and consensus. In addition, there may be exceptional situations where corroborating studies cannot be performed, perhaps for ethical or other reasons and in this case unequivocal recommendations are considered helpful for the reader. The quality of the underlying scientific evidence - although a very important factor – has to be balanced against benefits and burdens, values and preferences and costs when a grade is assigned.

Since the same rating system should be used in all chapters, for the sake of brevity the same sentence could be used in “Methods” for all manuscripts, because the rating system will be described in details in the Preface of the book:

“The studies were rated according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations graded according to a system used in the EAU guidelines modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine [1].”

References

[1] European Association of Urology. Guidelines. Methodology section. 2015 ed. Arnhem: European Association of Urology; 2015. p. 3. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-79754-80-9. Available from: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Extended-Guidelines-2015-Edn..pdf

The Living Handbook of Urogenital Infections and Inflammations is issued by:

European Association of Urology
att. Maurice Schlief, EAU executive manager business affairs

P.O.Box 30016
NL-6803 AA Arnhem, The Netherlands

Phone: 0031-26-38.90.680
E-mail: m.schlief@uroweb.org

Editor in Chief

responsible for the contents according to § 5 TMG and § 55 Abs. 2 RStV (Germany):

Kurt G. Naber, MD, PhD
Assoc. Professor of Urology

Technical University of Munich
Karl-Bickleder-Str. 44c
94315 Straubing, Germany

E-mail: kurt.naber@nabers.de

John N. Krieger MD, PhD

University of Washington Section of Urology

more

Daniel Shoskes MD, PhD

Cleveland Clinic Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute

more

Yong-Hyun Cho MD, PhD

St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea Department of Urology

more

Tetsuro Matsumoto MD, PhD

University of Occupational and Environmental Health Department of Urology

more

Florian M. E. Wagenlehner MD, PhD

Justus-Liebig University of Giessen Clinic of Urology and Andrology

more

Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen MD, PhD

Oslo University Hospital Urology Department

more

Kurt G. Naber MD, PhD

Technical University of Munich

more

Riccardo Bartoletti

University of Pisa
Department of Translational Research and New Technologies

more

Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen MD, PhD

Oslo University Hospital
Urology Department

more

PD Dr. med. Gernot Bonkat

University Basel
alta uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry (COB)

more

Prof. Tommaso Cai MD

Santa Chiara Regional Hospital
Dept. of Urology

more

Dr Leyland Chuang

Ng Teng Fong Hospital, National University Health System
Department of Medicine

more

Prof. Milan Cizman

University Medical Centre
Department of Infectious Diseases

more

Alison Crawford MSc

Queen's University
Department of Psychology

more

Pfofessor Svetlana Dubrovina MD, PhD

Rostov Medical State University
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

more

Dr Valerie Huei Li Gan MBBS (S'pore), MRCS (Edin), MMed (Surg), FAMS (Urology)

Singapore General Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Philip Hanno

University of Pennsylvania

more

Ass prof MD Gundela Holmdahl

Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrens Academy
Pediatric surgery and urology

more

Udo B. Hoyme

HELIOS Hospital Erfurt Ltd.
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics

more

David Hunstad

Washington University School of Medicine
Pediatrics / Molecular Microbiology

more

Gitte M. Hvistendahl

Aarhus University Hospital

more

Prof. Michael KOGAN M.D., PhD

Rostov State Medical University
Department of Urology

more

Dr Akihiro Kanematsu

Hyogo College of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Frieder Keller

University Hospital Ulm
Department Internal Medicine 1, Nephrology

more

Professor Katarzyna Kilis-Pstrusinska PhD, MD

Wroclaw Medical University
Department of Pediatric Nephrology

more

MD, PhD Tae-Hyoung Kim

Chung-Ang University
Urology

more

John N. Krieger MD, PhD

University of Washington
Section of Urology

more

Prof Ekaterina Kulchavenya

Novosibirsk Research TB Institute, Novosibirsk State Medical University

more

Dr Christina Kåbjörn Gustafsson

Ryhov Hospital Jönköping
Pathology

more

Dr. Bela Köves

South Pest Teaching Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Dr. med. Giuseppe Magistro

Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich
Department of Urology

more

Vittorio Magri

ASST-North
Urologic Clinic

more

András Magyar

South-Pest Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Professor Emeritus Brian Morris

University of Sydney
School of Medical Sciences

more

Baerbel Muendner-Hensen

ICA-Deutschland e.V.

more

Stephen F. Murphy

Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
Department of Urology

more

Kurt G. Naber MD, PhD

Technical University of Munich

more

Prof. Yulia Naboka

Rostov State Medical University
Department of Microbiology

more

Dr. J. Curtis Nickel MD

Queen's University
Department of Urology

more

Professor Ralph Peeker MD PhD

University of Gothenburg
Department of Urology

more

Tamara Perepanova

N.A. Lopatkin Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology

more

Prof. Gianpaolo Perletti M. Clin. Pharmacol.

University of Insubria
Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences

more

Felice Petraglia

Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence
Obstetrics and Gynecology

more

Dr. Jörgen Quaghebeur PhD. Med. Sci.

University Hospital Antwerp and University Antwerp
Department of Urology

more

Yazan F. Rawashdeh

Aarhus University Hospital
Paediatric Urology Section, Department of Urology

more

Professor Claus Riedl MD

-
Urology

more

Matthew Roberts

The University of Queensland
Faculty of Medicine

more

PD Dr. med Guido Schmiemann MPH

Institut für Public Health und Pflegeforschung, Universität Bremen
Abteilung Versorgungsforschung

more

Caroline Schneeberger MD PhD

Academic Medical Center (AMC)

more

Prof. Dr. med. Peter Schneede

Klinikum Memmingen
Department of Urology

more

Aaron C. Shoskes

Des Moines University Medical College of Ostheopathic Medicine

more

Daniel Shoskes MD, PhD

Cleveland Clinic
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute

more

Prof. Dr. Roswitha Siener

University of Bonn
University Stone Centre, Department of Urology

more

Sofia Sjöström

Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrens Academy
Pediatric surgery and urology

more

Mathew Sorensen

University of Washington School of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Prof. Dr. Dr. Walter Ludwig Strohmaier FEBU

Regiomed-Klinikum Coburg. Medical School Regiomed
Urology and Paediatric Urology

more

Satoshi Takahashi

Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine
Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine

more

Professor Paul Anantharajah Tambyah

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Hospital
Department of Medicine

more

Peter Tenke

South-Pest Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Praveen Thumbikat


Department of Urology

more

Dr. Jose Tiran Saucedo

IMIGO / Universidad de Monterrey
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

more

Dominic Tran-Nguyen

Des Moines University

more

Dean Tripp

Queen's University
Psychology, Anesthesia & Urology

more

Prof. SEONGHEON WIE

The Catholic University of Korea, St. Vincent's Hospital
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine

more

Florian M. E. Wagenlehner MD, PhD

Justus-Liebig University of Giessen
Clinic of Urology and Andrology

more

Assoc. Prof. Christian Wejse

Aarhus University, Aarhus University Hospital
Department of Infectious Diseases/Center for Global Health, Dept of Public Health

more

Prof. Dr. Mete Çek

Trakya University, School of Medicine
Urology

more